Was here a first human being?

[dio9]

Does any one disagree there must have been a first human being that didn't look like an ape? If there is , please explain why .

[Tcg]

Does any one disagree there must have been a first human being that didn't look like an ape? If there is , please explain why .

I do. We still look like apes, so there has yet to be a human that doesn't look like one.



Tcg

[benchwarmer]

Does any one disagree there must have been a first human being that didn't look like an ape? If there is , please explain why .

Define human being and "look like an ape". We still look like apes. Some more than others

Before this turns into yet another anti evolution rant, realize that evolution agrees there was a first "human". Also realize "human" is just part of a labeling exercise.

Evolution explains the continuum of life and taxonomists come along and label everything.

[PinSeeker]

Does any one disagree there must have been a first human being that didn't look like an ape? If there is , please explain why .

I do. We still look like apes, so there has yet to be a human that doesn't look like one.

I agree with this. But similarity doesn't mean the two were once one and the same. It just means they're similar. That's the one basic fact proponents of the concept of macro-evolution seem to purposely ignore.

[wiploc]

Does any one disagree there must have been a first human being that didn't look like an ape? If there is , please explain why .

Setting aside the fact that we still look like apes because we are apes:

I grant that there must have been a first human, but that designation would be entirely arbitrary. Rather like asking at what o:clock the Dark Ages ended.

We can pick a day and call it the last day of the Dark Ages, but the next day is still going to look a lot like the day before.

Do you look different from your parents? That's about how much different the first human would look from her parents.

-

I talked to Jonathan (Icons of Evolution) Wells. He doesn't lead with this, but he actually believes in evolution. He just thinks gods directed it. Gods arranged for the first cell to evolve into multitudes of species, including human-like apes. And then they gave a human baby to one of those apes.

I didn't have the courage to ask whether the gods gave her the baby in the usual way.

[benchwarmer]

Does any one disagree there must have been a first human being that didn't look like an ape? If there is , please explain why .

I do. We still look like apes, so there has yet to be a human that doesn't look like one.

I agree with this. But similarity doesn't mean the two were once one and the same. It just means they're similar. That's the one basic fact proponents of the concept of macro-evolution seem to purposely ignore.

First, "macro-evolution" is usually used by evolution deniers as some special label that doesn't exist in the scientific world. There is simply the theory of evolution and that's it. A scientist would only use the term to mean evolution on a large scale. It's quite ironic that many choose to ignore the actual definitions and build nice straw men to rip apart.

Please define for us what exactly is "macro evolution" in your mind. Then contrast it with "micro evolution". Then go look up the actual scientific theory and explain where these labels fit.

The theory of evolution does nothing in regards to labeling organisms. Your argument appears to be with taxonomists.

[PinSeeker]

The terms macro- and micro-evolution and the distinction between the two originates in the scientific community, not the Christian one. It's merely a distinction of scale... within the boundaries of a single species (micro-evolution), for which there is an abundance of evidence, and beyond those boundaries (macro-evolution), for which there is no evidence. Oh, plenty can be found on the internet, but that's the great thing about the internet, right? You can find anything on it...

I don't have any argument with anybody. Here's a link to Cal-Berkeley, which is hardly a bastion of Christianity... or conservatism, for that matter:

https://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibra ... oscales_01

[benchwarmer]

The terms macro- and micro-evolution and the distinction between the two originates in the scientific community, not the Christian one. It's merely a distinction of scale... within the boundaries of a single species (micro-evolution), for which there is an abundance of evidence, and beyond those boundaries (macro-evolution), for which there is no evidence. Oh, plenty can be found on the internet, but that's the great thing about the internet, right? You can find anything on it...

I don't have any argument with anybody. Here's a link to Cal-Berkeley, which is hardly a bastion of Christianity... or conservatism, for that matter:

https://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibra ... oscales_01

Uh, did you even read the link you posted? As I said, scientists will only use the terms in regards to scale. That's exactly what the link says. It also says the following which you must have missed:

Despite their differences, evolution at both of these levels relies on the same, established mechanisms of evolutionary change:

mutation
migration
genetic drift
natural selection

In other words, micro/macro are only useful labels for determining the number of generations we are talking about, not the actual mechanisms.

Evolution deniers like to use micro/macro as if they mean completely different mechanisms or something.

Perhaps if you explain to everyone where you draw the line between micro/macro evolution that would help. 100 generations? 1000? 100,000? Help us out. At what point do scientists decide a new species has formed and you stop agreeing with them? Those pesky taxonomists sure do love to label species. The more they name the more cramped that ark must have been.

[dio9]

The Genesis writer imply these first humans somehow broke the law. What do you think?
I know some of you are going to say , what law? Or define the law , but the Judaeo Christian bible says so.

Do you agree or disagree with this statement ; humans are out of sync with the rest of creation.
Do you think this thing called free will can be responsible for humanities good or evil actions?

[1213]

Does any one disagree there must have been a first human being that didn't look like an ape? If there is , please explain why .

I do. We still look like apes, so there has yet to be a human that doesn't look like one.

Please tell, what ape looks like you?